Cornish v. District of Columbia
67 F. Supp. 3d 345
D.D.C.2014Background
- Cornish, an African-American woman, worked at the Superior Court since 2008 in the P&S Branch, later transferring to Budget and Finance.
- She alleges hostile, demeaning, and discriminatory treatment by Coppet and Henderson, including remarks about appearance and race-related stereotypes tied to Baltimore.
- After a stroke in November 2010, Cornish alleges intensified harassment and restrictions, followed by a transfer and ongoing workload concerns in 2011.
- Cornish remained JS-11 while performing JS-12/JS-13 duties; she alleged pay disparities compared to male colleagues; she sought salary adjustments and advancement.
- The District moved to dismiss several claims and sought summary judgment on others; Cornish brought twelve counts including federal and state claims and common law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of Title VII race/sex claims | Cornish asserts race/sex claims are reasonably related to disability/personal appearance claims. | District argues exhaustion failed since EEOC charge did not allege race/sex discrimination. | Counts IV and V dismissed for failure to exhaust. |
| Equal Pay Act viability | Cornish performed substantially equal work to higher-paid male co-workers and duration negates temporary status. | Dispute over same-work comparison and temporary status justifies pay difference; claim should be dismissed. | Count VI denied; EP A claim survives the dismissal motion. |
| Breach of contract claim viability | Personnel Policy Section 600 creates contractual rights and damages liability. | Policy does not create a private contract or damages claim; no contractual basis. | Count IX dismissed. |
| DCHRA applicability to DC Courts employees | Section 600 mirrors DCHRA protections; DCHRA may apply to court employees. | DCHRA does not apply to DC Courts employees; Mapp controls here. | Counts VII and VIII dismissed; DCHRA not applicable. |
| Timeliness of unliquidated damages notice under § 12-309 | Notice tolled during EEOC process and/or because of Title VII exhaustion; content relaxed. | Strict six-month notice to Mayor; no tolling during administrative processes; notice untimely. | Summary judgment for unliquidated damages claims granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (exhaustion relation to administrative investigations)
- Siegel v. Kreps, 654 F.2d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (exhaustion requirements for Title VII claims)
- Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 251 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2003) (exhaustion and tolling considerations in Title VII cases)
- Doe by Fein v. Dist. of Columbia, 697 A.2d 23 (D.C. Ct. App. 1997) (no equitable tolling for § 12-309; strict construction)
- Pitts v. Dist. of Columbia, 391 A.2d 803 (D.C. 1978) (policy rationales behind § 12-309; early settlement)
- Washington v. Dist. of Columbia, 429 A.2d 1362 (D.C. 1981) (notice requirements under § 12-309; not exactness but adequacy)